NFC East: Ben Roethlisberger
One thing I have learned in my nearly one full year of running this blog is that everyone is in complete lock-step agreement on how good a quarterback Tony Romo is and on his value to the Dallas Cowboys. Every time I write about Romo, all of the comments are exactly the same, and there is never any dispute about Romo's ability, his worth or his future prospects. We have our share of controversial topics here on the NFC East blog, but when the topic is Romo, no one ever argues or gets upset.
Yeah, right.
Now, if you're still reading, and you haven't already rushed to the comments section of this post to fight with each other about this, or to K.C.'s Insider post to argue directly with him, I'll give you a little synopsis of the man's points. (And I guess I might as well remind you that K.C. was about the only analyst last summer who was predicting the Giants to win this division, so it's not as though his often-controversial opinions have never been right.)
K.C. tells us that Romo's ranking is based on the following, mainly statistics-based reasons:
-Superior route-depth metrics (tied for fifth last year in yards per pass attempt)
-Low bad-decision rate, or "BDR" (fifth-lowest last year among quarterbacks with at least 175 pass attempts)
-High Total QBR (finished fourth in the NFL in 2011)
-A long history of top-level statistical performance (tied for fifth in NFL history in career yards per pass attempt)
-Ability to raise the level of play of those around him (Romo averaged double-digit yards per attempt to his third and fourth wide receivers in 2011)
-Changing of the elite guard at the quarterback position (i.e. disappointing 2011 seasons from Philip Rivers and Ben Roethlisberger, and injury concerns about Michael Vick and Peyton Manning)
-No signs of letting up (still in his prime and surrounded by big-time offensive weapons)
I think what's interesting is that a lot of these areas in which the numbers show that Romo excels are areas of his game that often fall victim to easy criticism from his detractors. "BDR," for example. K.C. acknowledges that games like the Detroit loss last season contribute to a perception that Romo is a reckless gunslinger, but he says the numbers don't back it up:
BDR is a metric that gauges how often a quarterback makes a mental error that leads either to a turnover or a near turnover, like a dropped interception or fumble that is recovered by the offense.
The nine-year track record of this metric shows that a 2 percent or lower BDR is an above-average mark for a dink-and-dunk passer, while gunslinger quarterbacks can take pride in a BDR under 3 percent.
...
As poor as that [Detroit] performance was, Romo still posted a 1.8 percent BDR for the season. That total ranked fifth-best among qualifying quarterbacks (minimum 175 attempts) and is doubly notable because it's quite rare for a risk-taking quarterback to post a BDR under 2 percent.
In the end, though, the issue with Romo remains unchanged. Those who are inclined to dislike him will find plenty of reasons to do so, and will hang their hats on the fact that he's only won one playoff game ever. They'll go back to the botched snap, and the playoff loss to the Giants four years ago, and they'll bellow that he doesn't have what it takes to be great because he hasn't come up big in a big game. And until and unless he does that, no statistical analysis will convince those who don't want to be convinced.
The fact is that Romo is an excellent quarterback who hasn't won yet. And while in this day and age, all that matters to anyone about a quarterback is whether he's ever held the Vince Lombardi trophy up over his head while confetti fluttered down around him, it is in fact possible to be exactly that. Doesn't mean it's fun to be that, but it also doesn't mean Romo's worthless. Two-thirds of the teams in the NFL would trade their current quarterback situation straight-up for the Cowboys' quarterback situation, whether the guy's won or not.
You can find the offensive position-group rankings here and the defensive ones here, but this is an Insider feature and you'll only be able to read it if you pay for it. So I'll hit some of the Giants-related highlights for you:
The Giants rank no better than fifth in any of the position groups except one. Matt has rated their defensive line No. 1 in these playoffs:
We will be privileged to watch some great defensive lines this postseason. With Justin Tuck and Osi Umenyiora now healthy and playing at a high level, I picked the New York Giants for the top spot here. But the reality is, there could be a great argument for Baltimore (I do count Terrell Suggs as a defensive end, not a linebacker) or San Francisco to claim the top spot.
Matt has the Giants fifth-best at quarterback, with Eli Manning ranking behind Aaron Rodgers, Drew Brees, Tom Brady and Ben Roethlisberger. You could make a case, certainly, for the 2011 version of Manning being better than Roethlisberger, but you can't argue with Big Ben's postseason record.
Matt also has the Giants fifth at running back, behind Houston, Baltimore, San Francisco and New Orleans and ahead of Atlanta, which surprised me a little except that I know Matt likes Ahmad Bradshaw a lot and that, like me, he puts the blame for the Giants' 32nd-ranked running game far more on the offensive line than on the backs.
The Giants' worst grades came at offensive line and linebacker, where he ranks each 10th. The Giants' line ranks ahead of only Atlanta's and San Francisco's, and at linebacker he ranks them ahead of only Cincinnati and New Orleans. The Giants don't have a case at either of these positions. Their line has played better recently, but (a) so has Atlanta's, since they went more to the no-huddle in the second half of the season and (b) on overall 16-game body of work, the ranking is justified. I mean, 32nd in the league in rushing is 32nd in the league in rushing.
Matt also has the Giants ninth at defensive back and seventh at special teams, which again ... tough to really argue.
A couple of spots where I think he underrated the Giants a bit are at receiver, where he has them sixth, and at coaching, where he has them eighth. The receiver rankings are real eye-of-the-beholder stuff, and when you factor in tight ends, yeah, I can see how someone might rank them behind New England or Detroit. I personally think the Hakeem Nicks-Victor Cruz tandem this year ranks with any one-two wideout combo in the whole league, but again -- eye of the beholder. And on coaching? Tom Coughlin's used to being underrated, even in his own town. He'll survive.
Bottom line, if Matt's right, the places where the Giants are weak are similar to those in which the Falcons are weak, which bodes well for them in this first-round game. And in the places where they're strong -- quarterback and defensive line -- they rank with or ahead of anyone, which bodes well for them if they get past the Falcons.
People still don't like Michael Vick
Forbes.com reported Monday that Vick is the NFL's most disliked player, according to a poll by Nielsen and E-Poll Market Research. Forbes.com reports that 60 percent of those polled picked said they "dislike," "dislike somewhat," or "dislike a lot" the Philadelphia Eagles quarterback. Second on the list was New York Jets receiver Plaxico Burress at 56 percent, who also has returned from a prison stay, followed by Pittsburgh Steelers quarterback Ben Roethlisberger, who was accused of sexual assault last year but wasn't charged.
No surprise, I guess. The top two guys have both done jail time over the past half-decade and the guy at No. 3 at least danced with the possibility. That's the kind of thing that makes the public dislike a guy, especially when a segment of the population remains inclined to feel like people who commit those kinds of crimes shouldn't be allowed to return to multi-million-dollar-per-year jobs playing football. That's not the way I feel. I think, if you do your time, you should be allowed to go back to work if you can. But lots of people feel differently, and the results of this poll indicate that.
I do find it humorous that two of the players in the top 10 are Eagles quarterbacks, as Vince Young came in at No. 7. And on an NFC East-related note, Dallas Cowboys quarterback Tony Romo came in No. 9. But anyway, Vick's No. 1 and I thought y'all might like to know that as he gets ready to be on your TV sets Monday Night.
I'm going to start with the good news, Eagles fans. Ready?
LeSean McCoy looked really good, Jason Babin got a sack and Michael Vick made one heck of a tackle on Troy Polamalu after his third interception of the first half. Mike Kafka threw the ball extremely well in the fourth quarter after everybody stopped caring.
Oh, and the coaches now have a whole bunch of really awful-looking, mistake-riddled tape on which to base some real serious lessons this week in meetings and practice.
Other than that, pretty ugly. We can sit here and say everything we want to say about how it's only preseason, the games don't count, some teams devise game plans while others go vanilla and it's a bad idea to draw sweeping, upsetting conclusions based on preseason games. All of that stuff is true and must be said before we delve into what we saw. But the fact is that the Eagles looked bad, in almost every possible way, in Thursday night's exhibition loss to the Steelers. And since I am tasked with offering you an evaluation of what I saw, I have no choice but to detail the ugliness.
1. Bad matchup. The Eagles' new defense, under Juan Castillo and Jim Washburn, is predicated on aggressiveness, especially by the defensive line. This makes Ben Roethlisberger the worst possible quarterback for the Eagles to face. He dances through and around pressure, stays upright far longer than he's supposed to, keeps plays alive forever and generally feasts on defenses that don't show enough patience. All of this was on display Thursday, as Roethlisberger was three steps ahead of Castillo and the Eagles' defense at every turn. He drew them offsides with a hard count. He stepped up to avoid pressure. He pump-faked. He handed the ball off to Rashard Mendenhall and watched him gash the Eagles' backup defensive tackles and suspect linebacker corps. The Eagles helped him out, as when Asante Samuel guessed wrong on a route and Antonio Brown got past him and caught a 29-yard touchdown pass. And I'm willing to bet, when they gather for their defensive meetings in the coming days, the Eagles hear a little bit about how to control their aggressiveness a little bit better.
2. Casey Matthews may not be the answer. The Eagles' defensive play calling was very basic, perhaps because they're trying not to overtax their rookie middle linebacker. This is a key element of preseason evaluation. The Steelers looked as though they devised specific offensive plays to beat the Eagles, and the Eagles looked as though they did not prepare specifically for the Steelers. Happens all the time in preseason, and it's a big reason not to draw big conclusions from these games. But even with the basic play calling, Matthews looked slow and confused at times, and physically overmatched at others. The decision to start Matthews at middle linebacker is a surprising one by the Eagles, especially in light of all of the work they did to upgrade at other spots on defense. You wonder if the way he played Thursday might make them look around to see if there's a veteran on the market who can help, but on the other hand, they don't seem to be placing a very high value on the linebacker position in general. On one third down in the first quarter, they loaded up with three safeties and four cornerbacks, leaving Jamar Chaney as the only linebacker on the field. Their strengths are at corner and defensive end, so they'll lean on those. But when you have a back who can get through the line as quickly as Mendenhall can and it's up to the linebackers to make a play to stop him ... that's where Matthews and the Eagles look shaky.
3. Asante Samuel has to learn to play without Quintin Mikell. Samuel bit on a move and a fake that Brown and Roethlisberger didn't make on that 29-yard touchdown. It was a pure guess, and a bad one -- the kind that's worth taking if you know you have a responsible veteran safety backing you up. But the safeties were elsewhere on that play, and the new scheme plus the absence of the veteran Mikell (who signed with the Rams) could mean Samuel has to take more responsibility for playing the receiver he's covering instead of trying to jump a route to get an interception.
4. Vick was very, very, very not good. The bad throws were one thing, but the worse part was that he just didn't do a good job of reading the defense. He struggled against the blitz, which was supposed to be his area of focus this preseason. He never saw Ryan Clark on his first interception. He threw behind Chad Hall on the second. And the third was a bad decision -- he shouldn't have thrown the ball downfield after that play broke down as badly and as many times as it did. "Obviously, tonight, I didn't make the best decisions," Vick told Fox's Pam Oliver during a fourth-quarter sideline interview. That included the hit on Polamalu, which was very impressive but must have terrified his coaches. No reason for Vick to take a risk like that in a game whose outcome doesn't matter. He's too important to the Eagles to try something like that, and he's at least as lucky he didn't get hurt as the Eagles are that this game didn't count.
5. The defensive line misses its starting tackles. Antonio Dixon and Mike Patterson are out due to injury and illness, and that's part of why the run defense looked so vulnerable. I imagine the linebackers will look better once they're at full strength in the middle of the line. But if those guys are going to be out for an extended period of time (as is surely possible with Patterson, at least), this could continue to be a problem.
6. Ronnie Brown is going to be a huge asset in the backup running back role. He's a starting-quality running back whose role is to give the electrifying McCoy a rest. So, when McCoy is on the sideline, the Eagles are still going to be better at running back than many of their opponents are when their starting back is playing. Brown looks great so far this preseason, which brings up another as-yet unmentioned point: The work-in-progress offensive line didn't look too bad. Okay, so Point 6 wasn't really a bad-news point. But hey, it's true.
7. Can Howard Mudd really not coach from the press box? Poor guy really has a hard time getting around on those bad legs of his. Don't know why they wouldn't let him coach from up there. Unless he doesn't want to. I admit I don't know.
In conclusion, it's like this: As the Giants did Saturday, the Eagles looked lousy in almost all respects Thursday. So I point this out, as I did with the Giants on Saturday. What I am not saying here is that the Eagles are in trouble as a result of anything we saw Thursday. The sky is not falling. This game matters not at all, except as a potential learning opportunity. Did it point to some potential trouble spots? Sure. But it doesn't mean the team isn't as good as people thought it would be. It just means the Eagles had a bad night in August. Kind of like the Steelers had last week against the Redskins. And you saw how they bounced back from that.
Tom Brady or Peyton Manning? It's the debate of the moment in today's NFL. Which superstar quarterback is the best? Who, between that pair of excellent, future Hall of Fame signal-callers, would you pick if you had the choice? That's not the question that was asked of our Power Rankings panel this week, but it turned out to be the one we answered.
Yes, after weeks upon weeks of power-ranking everything we could think of in the NFL, we've decided to throw all qualifiers and designations out the window and make it very simple: Who are the best players in the league?
As was the case when our panel was asked to rank the league's top quarterbacks, Brady beat out Manning for the top spot in this week's power rankings. Six of the eight NFL bloggers polled ranked Brady No. 1 overall, and the two who didn't -- Mike Sando and Paul Kuharsky -- ranked him second behind Manning. The top four players in our rankings and seven of the top 10 (of the top 11, technically, since Michael Vick and Andre Johnson tied for the No. 10 spot) all play the same position -- quarterback -- which says a lot about the way we value that position.
"Quarterback is the most significant position on the field and can make the difference between a lopsided losing record and the playoffs," said AFC East blogger Tim Graham, whose ballot had quarterbacks in each of the first seven spots and eight of 10 overall. "It takes a truly special running back or defensive player to outweigh the importance of a quarterback. For example, Adrian Peterson is a sensational player. But without Brett Favre producing at quarterback, Peterson couldn't carry the Vikings to the playoffs."
So the question then became which quarterback was the best. The debate these days seems to be squarely between Manning and Brady, though two of our eight bloggers did rank Manning third on this week's list. We'll get to them in a minute. We'll start with the majority opinion -- that Brady is the best player in the league right now.
Ranking the Top Players: How They Voted
| Rk | Player |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | Tot |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DG | TG | PK | MS | KS | JW | BW | PY | |||
| 1 | Tom Brady | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 78 |
| 2 | Peyton Manning | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 72 |
| 3 | Drew Brees | 4 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 8 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 58 |
| 4 | Aaron Rodgers | 3 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 7 | 4 | 4 | 57 |
| 5 | Troy Polamalu | 6 | 8 | 8 | 9 | 5 | 4 | 7 | 9 | 32 |
| 6 | Adrian Peterson | 5 | 10 | 5 | -- | 4 | -- | -- | 6 | 25 |
| 7 | Ben Roethlisberger | -- | 5 | -- | 6 | -- | 6 | 5 | 10 | 23 |
| 8 | Chris Johnson | 10 | -- | 6 | -- | 6 | -- | 8 | 5 | 20 |
| 9 | Philip Rivers | -- | 6 | -- | 5 | -- | -- | 6 | -- | 16 |
| 10 | Michael Vick | 7 | 7 | -- | 7 | -- | -- | 9 | -- | 14 |
| 10 | Andre Johnson | 9 | -- | 7 | 8 | -- | 10 | -- | 7 | 14 |
| 12 | Demarcus Ware | -- | -- | 10 | -- | -- | 5 | -- | -- | 7 |
| 13 | Clay Matthews | -- | -- | 9 | -- | 7 | -- | -- | -- | 6 |
| 13 | Darrelle Revis | 8 | -- | -- | -- | -- | 8 | -- | -- | 6 |
| 15 | Patrick Willis | -- | -- | -- | 10 | -- | 9 | -- | -- | 3 |
| 15 | Roddy White | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | 8 | 3 |
| 17 | Larry Fitzgerald | -- | -- | -- | -- | 9 | -- | -- | -- | 2 |
| 17 | Matt Ryan | -- | 9 | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | 2 |
| 19 | James Harrison | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | 10 | -- | 1 |
| 19 | Joe Thomas | -- | -- | -- | -- | 10 | -- | -- | -- | 1 |
| Key: DG=Dan Graziano; MS=Mike Sando; KS=Kevin Seifert; PY=Pat Yasinskas; TG=Tim Graham; BW=Bill Williamson; JW=James Walker; PK=Paul Kuharsky Rank: 1=10 points, 2=9 points, 3=8 points, 4=7 points, 5=6 points, etc. | ||||||||||
I was one of the six who ranked Brady in the top spot, and the main reason was that I think Brady has attained a level of excellence in New England that's beyond what Manning has been able to attain in Indianapolis. Brady's accomplishments in 2007, when he combined with Randy Moss to set all kinds of offensive records and went undefeated until losing the Super Bowl to the Giants, were all-time legendary. But what people may not realize (perhaps because of the ludicrous level at which Brady excelled that year) is that the past two seasons have been the second-best and third-best statistical seasons of Brady's career. If Brady hadn't hurt his knee in the first game of the 2008 season and missed the rest of that year, it's very possible he would be on the kind of run right now that would make a Brady-Manning debate seem silly.
After the Patriots traded Randy Moss in the middle of 2010, the question was whether they were giving up on the season. What they were doing instead was committing to a midseason overhaul of the offense that wouldn't have been possible without the confidence they had in Brady to manage it. All Brady did was muster the second-best completion percentage and second-highest touchdown-pass total of his career while throwing just four interceptions and winning at least 14 games for the fourth time.
Related Coverage
• Podcast: Mike & Mike debate 
• Power Rankings: Wide Receivers
• Power Rankings: Running Backs
• Power Rankings: Pass-Rushers
• Power Rankings: Tight Ends
• Power Rankings: Head Coaches
• Power Rankings: Linebackers
• Power Rankings: Cornerbacks
• Power Rankings: Quarterbacks
• Power Rankings: Safeties
• Power Rankings: Owners
• Power Rankings: Helmets
• Power Rankings: Defensive players
• Power Rankings: Offensive players
• Power Rankings: Toughest Venues
• Power Rankings: Rising Assistants
"Manning is simply asked to do more than any player in the league is asked to do," Kuharsky said. "He's superb at it. I love Brady. But Manning can do more, is asked to do more, and has to do more. Jim Caldwell is an OK coach so far. Bill Belichick is an all-time great. The guy making up the gap in order to have the Colts stay in range of the Patriots is Manning."
But the Colts really weren't in range of the Patriots this year, and for that reason Manning's star has dimmed in the eyes of a couple of our panelists. NFC North blogger Kevin Seifert ranked Aaron Rodgers No. 2 and Manning No. 3. And NFC South blogger Pat Yasinskas ranked Saints quarterback Drew Brees in that No. 2 spot ahead of Manning.
"I'm not trying to diminish Peyton in any way. He's going to be a first-ballot Hall of Famer. But, if you look at his numbers and Brees' numbers over the last three or four years, they're similar and, in some ways, Brees' numbers are better," Yasinskas said. "Brees and Manning each have won one Super Bowl title. My argument is that, right now, Brees is even more valuable to the Saints than Manning is to the Colts. Times change and circumstances change. But right now I think Brees is the perfect quarterback for the Saints and is in the perfect situation with their offensive system and coaching staff. In fact, I considered voting for Brees No. 1 overall, but couldn't quite bring myself to rank him ahead of Tom Brady."
Steelers safety Troy Polamalu, who came in first in the defensive player power rankings, ranked fifth on the overall list. AFC North blogger James Walker ranked Polamalu fourth, and Seifert ranked him fifth. Walker's ballot was the most generous overall to defensive players, as he ranked Polamalu fourth, Cowboys pass rusher DeMarcus Ware fifth, Jets cornerback Darrelle Revis eighth and 49ers linebacker Patrick Willis ninth.
Rank 'Em: Top Players
Who are the top players in the NFL? ESPN.com's stable of NFL bloggers weighed in with its rankings and we've tabulated the results.
"If we rate these quarterbacks so highly, how can we not rate the guy we said was tops at disrupting quarterbacks highly too," Paul asked. "Makes no sense. I had him too low at 10. For six of you guys to leave him off entirely dents your collective credibility. Next I imagine you'll say the E Street Band isn't the all-time best backing band."
Paul is grouchy.
"I value pass-rushers, and no player has more sacks the past two seasons than DeMarcus Ware (26.5)," Walker said. "Getting to the quarterback is the best way to combat the league's increasing number of pass-happy offenses, and no one does it better right now than Ware."
The highest-ranked offensive player who wasn't a quarterback was Peterson, who came in sixth after being named on five of eight ballots. Sando, Walker and AFC West blogger Bill Williamson left the Minnesota running back off their ballots -- the third time in three tries that Williamson has ranked Peterson lower than most of the rest of us did.
"This is a quarterback league and that's how I built my top 10," Williamson explained. "There were only three non-quarterbacks on my top 10. After I constructed the quarterback rankings, I went to the best available non-quarterbacks, and the list was quite short. But to reiterate, this is the top 10. The best of the best. I think Peterson is probably a top-15 guy and that’s pretty good in a league of 1,800-plus professionals."
Pretty good indeed. But as Bill said, it's a quarterback league. And for that reason, the debate about the best player in the league came down, once again, to Peyton Manning vs. Tom Brady.
NFC West blogger Mike Sando has pulled back the curtain on the once-mysterious voting process, and the transparency is staggering. Let's take a closer look at how the four teams from the Beast fared in the Power Rankings:
6. Philadelphia Eagles: The Eagles should've moved up more than two spots following consecutive wins over the Colts and Redskins. Sando agreed with me, giving Philly a No. 5 vote. But John "The Professor" Clayton apparently wants to see more from Michael Vick and friends. He gave the Eagles their lowest vote with a stunning "8." If the Eagles beat the Giants on Sunday night, I think the voters will finally stand at attention to Andy Reid, who needs to invest in a rain repellent jacket.
8. New York Giants: The voters could've been much tougher on the Giants. AFC North guru James Walker punished them a bit with a "10" spot, but Clayton had them two spots ahead of the Eagles at No. 6. I guess he's giving the Giants some grace based on all their injuries heading into the Cowboys game.
21. Washington Redskins: Sando hammered the Skins with a No. 24 vote -- and I think that's about right. That was an embarrassing performance in a big spot. Clayton has the Redskins at No. 18, ahead of the Chargers and the Texans. There's no way I'd have the Skins in the top 20 after that poor effort against the Eagles. It seems like the voters were in a very forgiving mood this week.
29. Dallas Cowboys: I thought the Cowboys would jump four or five spots after beating a team that was in the top five of the Power Rankings. But only Walker tried to move the Cowboys up -- to 27. Clayton and AFC South stalwart Paul Kuharsky left the Cowboys twisting in the wind at "29." Surely Jason Garrett and his magic lectern deserve better.
Video: Roethlisberger starts in Steelers' win
Ben Roethlisberger threw for 76 yards and had an interception as the Pittsburgh Steelers top the New York Giants, 24-17.
Howard Smith/US PresswireThere are plenty of new faces on Andy Reid's roster heading into the 2010 season.And there he was on the first day of training camp at Lehigh University, in his usual command position on the practice field, about 50 yards behind the middle linebacker, all alone, looking at his own reincarnation.
Gone was Donovan McNabb -- Reid’s first training camp in his 12-year head coaching career without the quarterback he drafted in the first round in 1999.
Gone was Brian Westbrook -- the veteran running back who provided much of the late-game heroics and pyrotechnics that often bailed out the Eagles and their head coach.
And there were all the new faces, including Kevin Kolb, who will have the fewest career starts -- just two -- of any prospective starting quarterback in the NFC this year. In all, the Eagles jettisoned 14 players from their 2009 roster -- more than any team in the league.
Howard Smith/US PresswireKevin Kolb takes over at quarterback for the departed Donovan McNabb.How green are these Eagles? The training camp roster boasts only one non-kicker over the age of 30, the fewest in the NFL.
"There’s a little bit of unknown, which I kind of like," said Reid of his new team, average age 24.1 years old. "I like that."
Now, there is a first. The NFL’s head coaches -- among the planet’s greatest control artists -- rarely embrace the unknown, or at least admit it in public.
Assessing his rebuilt roster, Reid called it "a great challenge." What might be more challenging is convincing his championship-starved fan base that this roster overhaul can work. In Philadelphia, with McNabb now playing for the division-rival Washington Redskins, and so much inexperience wearing midnight green this season, there is little love of the unknown created by Reid.
More like fear.
And that translates into one thing: a whole lot of pressure on Reid. Yes, the head coach was given a three-year contract extension in December. But now failure to bring a Super Bowl title to Philadelphia can no longer be blamed on McNabb’s shortcomings, Westbrook’s injuries or aging veterans such as Brian Dawkins who are long gone.
It’s on Reid now.
"There are some big-name players that have been proven players on this football team that aren’t here," said Reid. "It’s important that the young guys step up and they go."
If they don’t, it will be difficult to try to peddle to Eagles fans that the team was victimized by inexperience. Going young was the franchise decision.
One of our Canadian readers, Anton, has a question regarding the Cowboys' defensive line: Hey Matt, I just had a thought about the Cowboys: Since they have at least four quality defensive ends (Olshansky, Spears, Hatcher and Bowen) but have little depth behind Jay Ratliff at nose tackle, why don't they move one of those players to defensive tackle?
Mosley: Anton, it takes a unique player to fill the nose tackle spot in the Wade Phillips 3-4. Jay Ratliff has such a high motor that he rarely comes off the field. In some of the sub-packages, Bowen and Hatcher can move inside. But I agree that the Cowboys could use more depth at the position. Be interesting to see what happens if Penn State defensive tackle Jared Odrick makes it to No. 27 in the first round. Pretty versatile player and the Cowboys certainly like him.
Hunter in Anchorage has a Skins trade proposal: I'm surprised that the Redskins haven't talked to the Bills about a trade scenario that includes Jason Campbell for Marshawn Lynch. Wouldn't he be a lot better option for RB than the Skins most recent pickups of Larry Johnson and Willie Parker?
Mosley: Lynch is younger and more talented than Johnson and Parker, but he also carries some baggage. I think Mike Shanahan really has to watch who he brings into this locker room. I still wonder if bringing the petulant Johnson into the fold was the right move. If a trade's completed with the Bills for Campbell, I think it will involve a draft pick. Watch what happens at No. 9 for the Bills. If they take Jimmy Clausen, we'll have our answer. That would eliminate a potential landing spot for Campbell. I still think the Panthers would be wise to trade for Campbell, but apparently they're going to ride this out with Matt Moore.
Constantine from London wonders if the Giants might be interested in Albert Haynesworth: Big BIG fan of the blog, read it EVERYDAY! Huge Giants fan from the UK and would like your opinion on something. Reportedly the Redskins want a second-round pick for Haynesworth now that they've paid his bonus. With the Giants being interested in him during free agency last year, would they spend a second on him? I think they should. We'll cover our most pressing need (MLB) in the first round, and since getting Rolle and Grant in free agency, we need a big defensive tackle -- especially as Jay Alford is coming off a torn ACL. Your thoughts?
Mosley: First of all, love your use of the CAPS button. Second, I'm afraid the Donovan McNabb trade has skewed the way we look at everything in the Beast. Now it seems possible that a team might trade a former All-Pro defensive tackle to a division rival for a second-round pick. And by the way, I have not seen a report with anything as specific as what you're suggesting. I've written that I think the Redskins might settle for a second-rounder for Haynesworth, but that's more of a gut feeling. And despite Mike Shanahan's apparent disgust with Haynesworth, I don't think he wants him playing for the Giants. I think he would immediately make the Giants better on the defensive line. If you're Giants general manager Jerry Reese, you make that deal in a heartbeat.
Robert in Austin has the final word on our "owners gone wild" segment: Really, the owner of an NFL team seen mocking a former NFL head coaching legend? As a child, the Cowboys were seen as one of the classiest organizations in the NFL. Great ownership (Clint Murchison), management (Tex Schramm) and coaching (Tom Landry). Oh no more, as Jerry Jones in his short stint as owner has made the Cowboys a laughingstock from an ownership and management standpoint. The tone at the top for the Cowboys is horrible. An owner who drove out one coach because he could find "500 coaches to coach this team to a Super Bowl," and now mocking one of the great NFL coaches in the league who resurrected the football team? This incident makes me envious of the Steelers, a truly class organization.
Mosley: Hmm... It's an interesting time for a Cowboys fan to be envious of the Steelers. I didn't get the feeling that Art Rooney II felt particularly proud while delivering that public rebuke of Ben Roethlisberger on Thursday. And by the way, Jones has owned the Cowboys for 22 years now. That's not exactly a "short stint." I've been highly critical of him over the years, but I don't see this whole video incident as that big a deal. Jones likes Bill Parcells and I didn't hear anything in that video to make me think otherwise. He's made some awful moves over the past two decades (Roy Williams, Joey Galloway come to mind), but to say he's turned the organization into a "laughingstock" seems a bit harsh. OK, I'm getting tired of defending the man. Let's put this story to bed.
Patrick from Arkansas has an Eagles question: Hey, with the draft picks the Eagles have gotten in recent trades, do you think it's possible that they trade up to get someone like Eric Berry? They have already worked him out. Your thoughts?
Mosley: Berry's a rare talent at safety. The Eagles would have to sacrifice much of their draft to move up that far. In fact, I'm not sure the No. 24 and No. 37 would get you close enough to Berry. (I'm scrambling for my trade chart as we speak.) It's much more likely the Eagles stay right there at No. 24 and select a cornerback such as Boise State's Kyle Wilson. I also think USC's Taylor Mays will be available, but there are a lot of concerns about his ability to make plays on the ball. OK, let's do this again soon. You guys have been on fire lately.
Westbrook's worried about his future
Howard Smith/US PresswireBrian Westbrook wants to be sure he's 100 percent healthy before returning to the field."That's my biggest concern. How am I going to be when I'm 50 or when I'm 60? Will I have all these brain diseases and will I have a problem remembering things? . . . Now, I'm trying to get myself together with the help of the doctors as well as coach [Andy] Reid and the training staff. Now, the most important thing is to get 100 percent healthy -- and not play football . . . until I'm 100 percent healthy."
And all of those concerns sound quite reasonable to me. With the research that's being conducted, it's pretty obvious that repeated brain trauma on the field could lead to long-term health issues. So who can blame Westbrook for not rushing back onto the field?
It sounds like Westbrook's weighing a lot of different opinions:
You hear all these different stories," Westbrook said. "You hear the worst -- from guys dying who had a concussion, you hear about guys with memory loss and things like that.
"You also hear, 'You can probably play next week. I played with a concussion. I had two or three concussions in one game.' . . . So at that point you try to process all the information and figure out what the best thing is to do. I've played with knee injuries and I played with ankle injuries throughout my career . . . but for me, and I think for any player, you can't really live your life without having a brain. You don't expect to leave the game without the ability to think. I don't want to put myself in that position."
I don't think the Eagles will rush Westbrook in any way. They'd love to have him return to the field this season, but only if he's comfortable with it. I don't think you'll hear any of his teammates say anything close to what Steelers wide receiver Hines Ward recently said about quarterback Ben Roethlisberger.
How does Eli stack up against Rivers and Big Ben?
Because of the famous draft-day trade in 2004, Eli Manning and Philip Rivers will always be compared. Manning has the Super Bowl ring, but Rivers has put up better numbers. And don't forget that Ben Roethlisberger was also in that '04 first round.
With that in mind, our friends from ESPN's Stats & Information put together a nice statistical breakdown of how the three quarterbacks have performed this season. Obviously, Manning's in a bad place right now but his numbers aren't as bad as you might imagine. Look how lethal Roethlisberger is on play-action passes. He's nearly flawless, while Rivers and Manning have been pretty pedestrian. For the play-action game to work, you need to make a commitment to the running game. That's something the Steelers and Giants haven't always done this season.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Manning was on a roll with the deep ball through the first five games, but that part of his game has fallen off the map in recent weeks. His dropoff coincides with his foot injury, although he's refused to use that as an excuse. To me, it just looks like he's playing poorly right now.
Posted by ESPN.com's Matt Mosley
Thanks to Kevin Conlon of ESPN Stats & Information for the following gem: Since Eli Manning's done for the day (because the Giants have a big lead), he will become the fifth different quarterback over the past five seasons to finish a game with a perfect passer rating, which is 158.3.
He joins an elite group that includes Kurt Warner, Ben Roethlisberger (three times), Tom Brady and Donovan McNabb.
Posted by ESPN.com's Matt Mosley
Every now and then, I'm reminded that the NFL created seven other divisions as sort of a neat diversion from the NFC East. Mostly this happens when AFC North blogger James Walker is looking to pad his stats by making unprovoked taunts toward unsuspecting players such as Tony Romo and Eli Manning.
The other day, I made an off-hand remark (imagine that) in a blog entry that I could make the argument that Manning was indeed a better quarterback than Ben Roethlisberger. Of course, that was before I looked at all the data suggesting that I was completely nuts to make that statement. James and his hearty audience took exception to my remark -- and challenged the Beast to an Eli vs. Big Ben throwdown.
Here's what the young Walker had to say on behalf of Big Ben:
Matt Mosley and the NFC East deal mostly in hype. In the AFC North, current home of the Lombardi trophy, we deal in reality. And the reality is New York Giants quarterback Eli Manning doesn't stack up to Ben Roethlisberger of the Pittsburgh Steelers in any way, shape or form.
While Mosley is begging his readers for help to defend Manning, I will present my case for "Big Ben."
For warm-up purposes, let's start with statistics.
Roethlisberger has a higher completion percentage (62.4 to Manning's 55.9), more touchdowns (101 to 98), fewer interceptions (69 to 74), more victories (51 to 42) and a much better career passer rating (89.4 to 76.1) than Manning.
Did I mention Roethlisberger has twice as many championships? You're going to need the entire Manning household to equal Roethlisberger in that category. Both quarterbacks were taken in the 2004 draft and Roethlisberger got off to a much faster start.
How quickly Mosley and NFC East followers forget Manning was nearly run out of New York during his first few seasons. He lost six of his first seven starts as a rookie and had just one winning season in his first three years.
Now Mosley suddenly thinks the younger Manning deserves to be the highest-paid player in the league with a $120 million contract and an unprecedented $50 million guaranteed. Manning's highest touchdown total for a season is just 24, yet he deserves the most money? Chalk it up to more NFC East hype.
Dealing in facts, Roethlisberger won 15 games as a rookie, including playoffs, and won his first Super Bowl in his second season. By the way, the Steelers already gave Roethlisberger a $100-plus million contract, because they knew early that Roethlisberger was the real deal. I find it interesting that the Giants haven't displayed the same level of confidence up to this point in their franchise quarterback.
Speaking of the Giants, let's discuss the Plaxico Burress factor. Burress leaves the Steelers and Roethlisberger becomes an even better player, winning a pair of Super Bowls including one immediately after Burress bolts Pittsburgh in 2005. Burress exits New York and the sky falls on Manning and he's never the same quarterback.
It's the same top-flight receiver. It's two quarterbacks put in a similar scenario. Yet Roethlisberger thrives and Manning crumbles. The "Plax factor" cannot be ignored in this debate. In fact, Manning would've never won his lone Super Bowl title without Burress. Roethlisberger is doing just fine without him.
And forget the argument that Manning does more with less. It's a farce. Manning has the best offensive line in football and two 1,000-yard rushers last season in Brandon Jacobs and former Giant Derrick Ward. Elite protection and an elite running game; what more can a quarterback want?
Meanwhile Roethlisberger has one of the NFL's worst offensive lines and no 1,000-yard rusher in 2008, yet found a way to win Super Bowl XLIII. If you gave Roethlisberger the best offensive line in football and two 1,000-yard rushers, there is no telling the damage the Steelers could do with Roethlisberger under center.
In terms of clutch, Manning had one clutch moment while Roethlisberger has already put together a clutch career. The Steelers have never had a losing season with Roethlisberger and he is 8-2 in his career during the playoffs.
Manning is just 4-3 in the playoffs. If you take away his Super Bowl run following the 2007 season, Manning is 0-3 in the postseason. So who would you want under center in a must-win game: Roethlisberger or Manning?
Mosley's response: Honestly I felt like James had me on the ropes right up until the time he said, "if you take away [Manning's] Super Bowl run following the 2007 season, Manning is 0-3 in the postseason."
Is that one of the most misguided closing arguments in the history of blogging debates or am I being too harsh? For the sake of this argument, I'm hoping James will allow Manning to retain the crowning achievement of his career. What Manning did in the 2007 playoffs -- especially in the Super Bowl -- redefined him as a quarterback in this league. And by the way, Big Ben would be 0-2 in the playoffs if we took those eight wins away. OK, this is a classic misdirection play that I'm involved in right now, so I'll move away from James' closing argument.
Truth be told, James has a lot more ammunition in terms of numbers, including the two Super Bowl rings that Big Ben's wearing. But seriously, shouldn't you only get a pinky ring when you have a 22.6 passer rating in your first Super Bowl and depend heavily on some very questionable calls to beat the Seahawks? No?
Walker points out Big Ben's quick start to his career, but let's not act like the two quarterbacks were on an equal playing field in 2004. The Steelers were loaded on both sides of the ball, and Roethlisberger was basically asked to manage the team. Manning sat on the bench behind a sputtering Kurt Warner and then he was thrown into the fire midway through the season. People will point to Manning having more interceptions, but that's because he was asked to do more than Big Ben early in his career. Roethlisberger has had the benefit of elite defenses and running games throughout most of his career. That hasn't been the case with Manning. In fact, the Giants' defense had actually put up pedestrian numbers in 2007 before they became a force during the Super Bowl run.
As I pointed out in a recent mailbag, Roethlisberger has taken a staggering 192 sacks in his career, while Manning, in virtually the same amount of games, has taken 120. Big Ben's defenders will point to the fact that he's more mobile than Manning -- and they'll be right. But he still holds onto the ball too long, which puts his offense in tough spots. I love that everyone always refers to how great a fourth-quarter quarterback Roethlisberger is. Well, in many cases, his mistakes are what gave him the opportunity to pull off those comebacks.
Oh
, and there's the fact that Roethlisberger pads his stats against the dregs of the AFC North. With a couple of exceptions, the Bengals and Browns have been brutal during Roethlisberger's time in the league. And it's not like their best competition, the Ravens, have been a juggernaut. Since 2004, the Ravens have had seasons of 9-7, 6-10 and 5-11.
Give Manning a crack at those same teams every season, and his numbers would be dramatically different. He came along when the Eagles were a dominant team and the Cowboys and Redskins are much stronger than anything the Bengals and Browns were putting on the field. Yes, I know the Bengals (and even the Browns) had a good season apiece, so don't try to get me on a technicality.
And one more thing: The whole Burress argument was completely unfair. He wasn't the truly elite receiver in Pittsburgh that he became with the Giants. So of course Big Ben's not going to miss him as much as Manning did. And Roethlisberger had an entire offseason to adjust to life without Burress. It happended to Manning overnight.
The only other thing I can think of right now is that Manning handled both the Steelers and Ravens in '08. James, you came out swinging as always -- but you left yourself exposed on several fronts. My winning argument today has to be one of the biggest upsets since Tyson-Douglas. All my best.
Beast Mgt.
Posted by ESPN.com's Matt Mosley
Apparently an off-hand remark I made in a recent blog entry didn't sit well with the patrons of James Walker's excellent AFC North blog. And that's why James has challenged me to a mini-debate on the issue.
So who would you guys take? Eli Manning or Ben Roethlisberger? I'd like to hear arguments for both quarterbacks and then I'll deliver my speech later today. And yes, I'm planning to steal your material -- if it's decent.
Posted by ESPN.com's Matt Mosley
Since the Beast is taking the Fourth of July off (without permission) from management, I'm posting the mailbag a day early. Many of you guys thought I was nuts to suggest Eli Manning could become the first $50 million (guaranteed) quarterback in the history of the league. I'll give you a chance to sound off in today's mailbag -- minus the expletives of course. So let's get the fireworks started:
Jeff in New York is concerned about my Thursday column on Eli: Mr. Mosley, yes I am a hardcore Steelers fan but I feel I am being unbiased here: I just read your piece on Eli Manning and you had mentioned you could argue that Eli is better than Ben Roethlisberger... can I ask how you can argue that? Unless you are basing your argument on one game (one unbelievable performance, I'll admit), it is not even close. Roethlisberger has two rings, more fourth-quarter comebacks, more regular-season wins, more playoff wins, more TDs career and less INTs career.
The one edge I can safely give Eli is his arm strength. He has a much better feel for the deep ball than Roethlisberger and while Ben tends to scramble and extend plays, Eli is much more comfortable standing in the pocket and delivering the ball. Eli is a very good quarterback and I am waiting to see when he has that explosive 30-TD year because I believe he will get there. I am just not ready to put him on Roethlisberger's level. Plus, I think he needs a weapon or two on the wide-receiver side this year because it is simply not fair to put all the pressure on him to perform at such a high level with mostly young, unproven receivers. Can he handle the load?
Mosley: First off, Jeff wins the award for longest question this week -- and he's obviously pretty knowledgable. But to suggest a Steelers fans can be "unbiased" in an Eli vs. Big Ben debate seems like a stretch. I don't think it's fair for people to suggest that Manning's career can only be measured by his performance in the Super Bowl, although he was outstanding that day. Both quarterbacks have been helped by strong running games and excellent receivers. It remains to be seen what Manning can do without Burress, but let's wait and give him a chance.
Jeff, you're sort of obsessed with numbers, but let me point out to you that Manning has succeeded over the past five seasons against superior competition. I know the Ravens were solid last season, but they haven't played like that throughout Big Ben's career. The Bengals are the Bengals (except for the one season) and the Browns had one decent season during the Roethlisberger era. Manning has spent his career in the best division in football (no bias) and that interception total is inflated because of getting thrown into the fire his rookie season. In Roethlisberger's first Super Bowl run, he wasn't asked to do nearly as much as Manning in his first Super Bowl run. And Roethlisberger played poorly in the Steelers' first Super Bowl appearance of the decade. Any arguments?
Manning and Roethlisberger have played almost the exact same amount of games since 2004 (73-72) and yes, Big Ben has thrown five fewer interceptions (69). But the number that bothers me about Roethlisberger is that he takes too many sacks. You can say that Manning's had the better offensive line (and you'd be right), but early on, Big Ben's line was better. He's taken 72 more sacks than Manning, which sort of adds up. Roethlisberger holds the ball longer, which helps account for his 192 sacks taken. Manning has 120 sacks, and he's much more willing to throw it away and not put his offense in a long-yardage situation. I understand that both fan bases are completely happy with their quarterbacks -- as they should be. But in the long run, I think Manning will prove to be the better player. Geez, we're already about 600 words in and we've "answered" one question.
Jeff from Beaumont, Texas, has a Redskins question: Matt, I always knew that Jason Campbell had to learn a new offense every year in the NFL, but I just recently read that he's in his seventh new offense in the last eight years (the exception being this year with Jim Zorn). Do you think Jason Campbell steps up to Pro Bowl/playoff level play or do you see him holding on to the ball, still hesitant to make the big play?
Mosley: There is no bigger defender of Jason Campbell on the Internet today than the Beast, but the "new offense" angle is getting a little old. Yes, it's relevant. But at some point you have to play the hand you're dealt in order to succeed. The other three teams in the division don't have sympathy for Campbell because of all the changes, so he has to find a way to overcome everything. In some ways, it's a little overblown. If a guy's talented enough to quickly process information, go through his reads and deliver the ball in traffic, he should be able to do it in any system. I think Campbell's poised to have a solid season, but there are too many good quarterbacks in the Beast for him to jump into the Pro Bowl. To address your last question, I think he'll be far less hesitant in his second year under Zorn. But if Stephon Heyer and Co. can't give him any time, it might not matter.
William B. from Beaverton, Ore. writes: I was wondering if you wanted to have a debate about the outlook of the NFC East in your comments section because, personally, I think you lost the debate on Eli Manning and Philip Rivers and I could win on any topic.
Mosley: More than 12,000 readers (possibly inflated) disagreed with you, William. But set up the debate and I'll join you in the comments section during training camp. I've been meaning to spend more time in the "comments" section. You'll recognize me by our exciting "nfceastadmin" tag.
Steve W. from Anchorage has a beef with our Tiger-Romo coverage: Matt, would be nice if for a day you left Tony Romo out of your reports. Who cares if he went golfing with Tiger? I went golfing with a couple buddies the other day. NO ONE CARES. The Pope doesn't talk about Jesus as much as you talk about the Cowboys! It's the NFC East, not the Cowboys blog -- since the Cowboys can't win the division or a playoff game, move on and become a reporter, not a Dallas insider.
Mosley: Steve, it takes guts to compare a round with your buddies in Achorage with a round including Tony Romo and the most popular golfer on the planet. And let's leave religion out of this! :)
Mike from Sedita, Ga., sent this message via fax: Matt, great piece on Eli's contract. My question is, after you write something like that, do you sit back and actually read the dribble of comments? I mean you're writing for every team generates almost the same response; here is the formula: insert any team in the article and the other three division foes for responses. Positive article about the Giants and then the Eagles, Cowboys and Redskins fans tank it while the Giants fans praise it -- as I did here.
N
egative article about the Giants, and the Eagles, Cowboys and Redskins fans LOVE it and the Giants fans bash it. Then there is the random AFC West guy who did a search for Rivers who chimes in. I usually read about three, laugh and go to your next note. I personally like most of it either way. Great work!
Mosley: Mike, stop giving away my secrets. Honestly, that's what makes writing the blog so fun. I realize that I'm going to get accused of being biased toward all four teams at times. That comes with the territory. For some reason, though, one team seems to come up more than any other! But yes, I sit back and read all the comments -- even the negative ones. You guys have made the Beast a huge success, and that's why I embrace the haters -- and the handful of supporters.
Programming note: I'll try to add a few more answers throughout the weekend, so please hit "refresh" every five hours or so. And have a wonderful Fourth of July!
ABOUT THIS BLOG
Dan Graziano
Graziano joined ESPN.com in 2011 after two years as a Senior NFL Writer for AOL FanHouse. He covered Major League Baseball, the Olympics and various other sports during his time at the Star-Ledger and the Palm Beach Post. A New Jersey native and author of two published novels, he now lives in Ridgewood, N.J., with his wife and two sons.
